1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. On January 26, 2001, the Plaintiff filed an application against the Defendant for a payment order with the Gwangju District Court 2001 tea1061 on the ground that “the Defendant was served the original of the above payment order on September 4, 200 and on December 31, 200, with the interest rate of KRW 25% per annum from the Plaintiff on September 4, 200 and on December 25, 200, and the repayment period of the loan (hereinafter “the loan”). The Gwangju District Court received the above application from the Plaintiff on February 23, 2001, and the Defendant did not object thereto even though it was served with the original of the above payment order on March 3, 2001.

(hereinafter “Related Cases”). [The grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, the entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2, the testimony of the witness C at the trial, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the borrowed amount of KRW 3 million and damages for delay, barring any special circumstance.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant asserted that the extinctive prescription of the instant loan claim by the Defendant had expired. As such, the extinctive prescription of the claim established by the judgment pursuant to Article 165(1) of the Civil Act was ten years, and as seen earlier, the relevant case was finalized on March 18, 2001, and it is evident in the record that the instant lawsuit was filed on August 3, 201, which was ten years after the said point, and barring any special circumstance, the extinctive prescription of the Plaintiff’s loan claim was expired, barring any special circumstance.

B. As to the Plaintiff’s claim 1 for the interruption of the extinctive prescription, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant’s mother would have suspended the extinctive prescription of the instant loan claim by paying interest on the instant loan loan around March 201. (2) In light of the following, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the extinctive prescription was interrupted, and that there was an approval of the obligation by the obligor as a ground for interruption of the extinctive prescription ought to be proved by the obligee who asserts it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da5959, Feb. 17, 2005).